Lyman Spurlock v the FBI
Warrior
LYMAN D. SPURLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 94-55506
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
D.C. No. CV-91-05602-R
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of
California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 17, 1995--Pasadena, California
Before: Procter Hug, Jr., Arthur A. Alarcon, and Edward Leavy, Circuit
Judges
COUNSEL
John P. Schnitker, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
D.C., for
defendant-appellant.
Kendrick L. Moxon, Bowles & Moxon, Los Angeles, California, for the
plaintiff-
appellee.
Filed November 7, 1995
ALARCON, Circuit Judge:
The Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") appeals from the portion of
the
district court's order requiring that the FBI produce certain documents
pursuant
to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. section 552, in an
action
filed by Lyman D. Spurlock ("Spurlock") seeking "all FBI records
concerning
himself." The FBI contends that reversal is compelled because the
district court
erred in ordering the FBI to produce documents contained in its
investigative
files once it determined those documents were properly withheld from
disclosure
pursuant to FOIA exemptions. We affirm the portion of the order that
holds that
the documents at issue are exempt from disclosure pursuant to FOIA, and
reverse the portion of the order requiring the FBI to disclose exempt
information.
I
On October 15, 1991, Spurlock filed a complaint for injunctive relief
alleging
that he had filed a request under FOIA for "all FBI records concerning
himself," that the FBI failed to produce all documents in response to
his request, and
that he was entitled to an order directing production of these records.
On March
24, 1992, the FBI filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that
the
disputed documents were each subject to one or more FOIA exemptions as
detailed
in its Vaughn Index.[FOOTNOTE 1]
The Vaughn Index in this case consisted of the declaration of Special
Agent J.
Gary Boutwell, and the exhibits attached thereto, which specified in
detail the
nature of the information withheld, and the FBI's claims of exemption
from
disclosure under FOIA. Boutwell's declaration explained that the FBI had
located
four investigative files responsive to Spurlock's request: two were in
its Los
Angeles office, and two were located at the FBI headquarters in
Washington,
D.C. Two of the files (LA 72-271 & FBIHQ 72-3383) concerned an
investigation resulting from allegations by a third party that Spurlock,
along with
other members of the Church of Scientology (COS), attempted to blackmail
an
individual working within the federal court system. The FBI investigated
these
allegations for possible obstruction of justice charges, and presented
its
findings to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice
ultimately
declined to prosecute.
The second pair of files (LA 62-8822 & FBIHQ 63-1970) were opened as a
result of a request for FBI assistance in identifying the Church of
Spiritual
Technology ("CST") from the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") and a law
enforcement agency, in connection with their investigation of a
potential
trespassing violation. After conducting an investigation, the FBI
advised the
BLM and the law enforcement agency that the CST was affiliated with the
Church of Scientology.
Boutwell alleged that these files contained 379 unduplicated pages which
referred
to Spurlock. After careful review, the FBI released to Spurlock 183
pages in
redacted form and 10 pages in their entirety. Copies of the redacted
pages, along
with a page-by-page explanation of both the redactions and any documents
withheld in their entirety, were attached to Boutwell's declaration.
Boutwell
further alleged that the withheld information fell within one or more of
the
exemptions specified in 5 U.S.C. section 552(b)(2), (5), 7(C), 7(D), and
7(E) of
FOIA.[FOOTNOTE 2]
In his opposition to the FBI's motion for summary judgment, Spurlock
argued
that Joseph Yanny, a former COS counsel, informed the FBI that Spurlock
and
other COS members had attempted to influence the outcome of COS-related
litigation through improper ex parte communications with a federal
judge.
Spurlock also theorized that Yanny was assisted in this effort by Vicki
Aznaran,
a former president of the Religious Technology Center, and her husband,
Richard
Aznaran. In support of this theory, Spurlock submitted, inter alia,
portions of
deposition and reporters' transcripts from other COS cases. Spurlock
further
argued that based on the FBI's "deep-rooted prejudice and animus . . .
against the
Scientology religion and its churches," the FBI used its investigation
of Yanny's
"knowingly false allegations as to the Church and the [federal judge]"
as a
"pretext for harassment of the Church, and for gathering and spreading
additional
falsehoods." Spurlock also asserted, without supporting evidence, that
the FBI
continued to gather information improperly concerning the BLM inquiry
about
the Church of Spiritual Technology long after its "investigation" of the
BLM
matter was closed.
The FBI filed a reply, objecting to Spurlock's factual assertions on the
ground
that they were inadmissible as hearsay. In support of its exemption
claims, the
FBI also submitted a supplemental declaration executed by Boutwell.
At the pretrial conference on April 20, 1993, the district court
partially granted
the FBI's motion for summary judgment, authorizing the withholding of
some of
the records under FOIA Exemptions 2, 5, and 7(C), and denying the motion
regarding other information ostensibly on the ground that a genuine
issue of fact
had been raised concerning whether FOIA Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E) were
applicable. A bench trial was held to determine whether the remaining
disputed
documents were subject to FOIA Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E).
After the presentation of evidence was completed, the district court
requested the
parties to submit briefs setting forth their argument. Spurlock filed
post-trial
briefs, along with a listing of documents which he claimed remained at
issue. The
FBI also filed post-trial briefs objecting, inter alia, to some of
Spurlock's factual submissions. Additionally, the FBI filed a notice of
release with regard
to page 84 of Defendant's Exhibit 100, explaining that, as a result of a
clerical
error, certain information had been redacted which should have been
released. Finally, the FBI submitted the remaining documents at issue
under FOIA Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E) to the district court under seal.
On June 8, 1993, the district court ordered the parties to discuss
settlement of
the remaining issues in the case in light of the ruling by the United
States
Supreme Court on the scope of Exemption 7(D) in Department of Justice v.
Landano, 113 S. Ct. 2014 (1993).[FOOTNOTE 3] The district court also
directed the parties
to file additional briefing discussing the applicability of Landano to
the matter under submission should their settlement efforts prove
unsuccessful. On August 9,
1993, the parties filed additional briefs. At that time, the FBI also
filed a
third declaration executed by Boutwell.
In his third declaration, Boutwell alleged that the FBI had reviewed all
documents in which an Exemption 7(D) claim was still challenged by
Spurlock
in light of the standard set forth in Landano, and released portions of
five
additional pages. Boutwell also explained that Spurlock had provided a
privacy waiver from Jeffrey S. Gordon, a COS attorney. As a result, the
FBI no longer withheld Gordon's name and information provided by him
under FOIA Exemption 7(C).
Boutwell's affidavit set forth the justifications, under the
post-Landano criteria,
for withholding of the identities of, and information received from,
"confidential
sources" under FOIA Exemption 7(D).
On November 30, 1993, the district court issued an order directing that
"[j]udgment pursuant to this order shall be entered in favor of
defendant." After
noting the documents which remained at issue, and stating that it had
considered
the submissions of the parties on the applicability of Landano, the
district court
held that "[a]ll the remaining documents are well within the exemptions
claimed"
by the FBI. The district court also stated, however, that
the F.B.I. should be sensitive to the
possibility that Mr. Yanny and the Aznarans
may have falsified any information either in
their public statements of what they may or
may not have said to the F.B.I. The F.B.I.,
perhaps with the help of plaintiff of what Mr.
Yanny or the Aznarans may have testified to
in depositions or court hearings that may be
[in] conflict with statements made to the
F.B.I., in each of those cases defendant is to
release so much of documents claimed to be
protected and protested herein by
exemptions to plaintiff for such use as
plaintiff may require.
The FBI sought reconsideration or clarification of the above-quoted
portion of
the district court's order. At the hearing on the motion held on January
18,
1994, the district court stated:
[The FBI] has an obligation, if these people
have lied in their depositions, to come
forward . . . and let [Spurlock] know
whether or not as a matter of fact . . .
[Yanny's or the Aznaran's statements in
depositions or news reports] conflict with
the statements they made to the FBI . . . . I
am directing you to do that. I suggested it to
you, but since you want clarification, I will
direct you to do it.
(emphasis added).[FOOTNOTE 4]
On January 31, 1994, the district court signed an order prepared by
Spurlock's
counsel styled as "Order Regarding Motion to Clarify Judgment." The
order
directed the FBI to meet with plaintiff's counsel "for the purpose of
assisting
the government to determine what information in the records at issue in
this
case may constitute evidence that false statements were made by Joseph
Yanny,
Richard Aznaran and/or Vicki Aznaran, either to the FBI or in their
sworn
testimony or statements in other proceedings" and "to produce to
plaintiff . . .
such falsified statements made by Yanny or the Aznarans." The order
further
stated:
The Court finds that where the government
possesses evidence that certain individuals
have provided testimony or obstructed
justice to the possible injury of another or
others, it has an obligation to make such
evidence known to the injured party or
parties so that they may seek corrective
action. The court further finds that it has
both statutory and inherent power to order
the relief herein. Moreover, it is in the
interest of all for investigative files to reflect
accurate information. "[I]t is well settled that
where legal rights have been invaded and a
federal statute provides for a general right to
sue for such invasion, federal courts may use
any available remedy to make good the
wrong done." Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678,
684 (1946)[.]
The FBI timely appealed from the order entered December 1, 1993, and
from the
order regarding the motion to clarify the judgment entered January 31,
1994.
II
As a threshold matter, we must determine whether the FBI's appeal is
properly
before us. See Professional Programs Group v. Department of Commerce, 29
F.3d 1349, 1352 (9th Cir. 1994) (an appellate court must consider sua
sponte
its proper jurisdiction). The FBI maintains that this court has
jurisdiction
over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1291.[FOOTNOTE 5] The
district
court, however, failed to enter a separate judgment in this action. Rule
58
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part,
that
"[e]very judgment shall be set forth on a separate document. A judgment
is
effective only when so set forth and when entered as provided for in
Rule 79(a)."[FOOTNOTE 6]
In this case, there is no question regarding the finality of the
district court's
order. The district court disposed of the entire action by stating in
its November 30, 1993 order that "[j]udgment pursuant to this order
shall be entered in favor
of defendant." Therefore, the absence of a Rule 58 judgment does not
prohibit our
review of this matter. See Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381,
382-88
(1978) (if no question exists as to the finality of the district court's
decision, the absence of a Rule 58 judgment will not prohibit appellate
review). Accordingly,
we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1291.
III
We must decide whether the district court exceeded its jurisdiction in
ordering
the FBI to produce documents contained in its files notwithstanding its
ruling
that those documents were exempt from disclosure under FOIA. We review
the
existence and extent of a district court's subject matter jurisdiction
de novo.
United States v. General Dynamics Corp., 61 F.3d 1402, 1406-07 (9th Cir.
1995). Because the district court asserted that it had "statutory and
inherent
authority" to order the disclosure of exempt records and information, we
examine
each of these alleged grounds for jurisdiction in turn.
A
It is undisputed that the sole statutory basis for Spurlock's claim is
FOIA. The
FBI contends that the district court was therefore limited to remedies
set forth
in FOIA. The FBI argues that once the district court determined that all
the
agency records at issue were exempt from disclosure under FOIA, the
district
court lacked jurisdiction to order further disclosure.
"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only
that power
authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by
judicial
decree[.]" Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 114 S. Ct.
1673,
1675 (1994) (internal citations omitted). Congress enacted FOIA " 'to
open
agency action to the light of public scrutiny.' " Department of the Air
Force v.
Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 372 (1976). The Act's "basic purpose reflect[s] 'a
general
philosophy of full agency disclosure unless information is exempted
under clearly
delineated statut79(a) governs civil docket entries.
FN7. We are mindful that section 552(b) provides as follows:
Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any
person
requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt
under
this subsection.
Accordingly, a district court may retain jurisdiction to order
disclosure of non-
exempt, segregable portions of otherwise exempt documents. See Wiener v.
F.B.I., 943 F.2d 972, 988 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1212
(1992). In
the matter sub judice, the district court's order clearly requires
disclosure of
exempt information, not merely disclosure of non-exempt segregable
portions of
the documents.
***
This file may be found at: